United States v. Jacques Maddox
803 F.3d 1215
11th Cir.2015Background
- Defendant Maddox and an accomplice attempted to rob a Walgreens on Sept. 2, 2013; Clinton brandished a firearm during the robbery and pistol-whipped the manager Feeney.
- Maddox was convicted of aiding and abetting an attempted armed robbery, but acquitted on aiding and abetting the accomplice’s use of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
- PSR applied a five-level firearm-brandishing enhancement and a two-level bodily-injury enhancement, yielding a total offense level of 27 and a guidelines range of 78–97 months.
- Defendant objected to enhancements based on Clinton’s conduct, arguing lack of advance knowledge and acquittal; he also challenged applicability under grouping rules.
- District court held the relevant conduct doctrine permitted considering reasonably foreseeable acts by Clinton, and sentenced Maddox to 78 months, affirming the enhancements and rejecting grouping arguments.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the use of Clinton’s brandishing and bodily injury as relevant conduct under 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) and rejecting the grouping argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acquittal on § 924(c) forecloses the enhancements. | Prosecution. | Maddox. | Enhancements permissible; acquittal does not bar relevant conduct. |
| Whether the enhancements were proven by a preponderance of the evidence as reasonably foreseeable. | Government proved foreseeability. | Knowledge and foreseeability not proved. | Yes; foreseeability established. |
| Whether § 1B1.3(a)(2) grouping barred consideration of the enhancements. | Grouping should apply to relevant conduct. | Grouping not applicable; restricts § 1B1.3(a)(1). | § 1B1.3(a)(2) not applicable; § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) validly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (acquittal does not bar consideration of conduct for § 1B1.3 enhancements)
- United States v. Poyato, 454 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006) (preponderance standard for enhancements; acquitted conduct can be used)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (Supreme Court 1997) (sentencing for conduct rather than crimes punished)
- United States v. Rosemond, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (requirement of knowledge for accomplice liability in § 924(c) context)
- United States v. Payne, 763 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2014) (Rosemond framework discussed; knowledge not necessary for all foreseeability)
- United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2007) (defers to witness credibility in credibility determinations)
- United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review framework for guideline issues)